Why does this myth persist?

Every single time Social Security has been raided it was by a Democrat President and Congress and they have never replaced one penny.

This is what Clinton and Gore did. Both told older folks in their campaigns that Republicans would take their Soc. Security from them and who in fact does. Obama wants to place a higher tax on it.

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its preliminary re estimate of the White House budget. This follows the Joint Committee on Taxation's (JCT) re estimate of the Clinton White House's tax provisions last week. Together, CBO and JCT are Congress' official estimators -- nonpartisan entities that Clinton himself promised to use when he first took office back in 1993.

President Clinton has promised to protect Social Security, to reduce the debt to the maximum extent possible, to control spending, and reduce taxes. But, Congress' official estimators show that on all four counts, the President's budget fails. Instead, Clinton's budget raids the Social Security trust fund for $158 billion in five years, it artificially erases the surplus, it lowers the public debt less than doing nothing would, it increases spending, and it raises taxes by $89.7 billion over the 1999-2009 period.

Clinton Raids Social Security: According to CBO, Clinton spends $40 billion of the Social Security surplus in his budget's first year (2000) and $158 billion over the first five years (2000-2004).

This is the same Social Security surplus that he has promised to save in its entirety.

This is the biggest reason S.S. is in trouble. Clinton did not have a surplus. He left us in debt we are still paying for.

Social Security pays 1/2 to 1 percent interest. Pass book savings pay more. This is how the Democrats artifically make it look like they have a surplus. If your relative dies before the end of the month, even one hour before the first of the next month you will have to return the whole of their months Social Security check. That is what the Democrats did for the American people.

here is how louis g answered this question a year ago:

There is often times confusion about the difference between the deficit and the national debt.

The national debt is a grand total of the money we owe. The deficit is simply a measure of how much we spent vs how much the government took in. When we spend more than we take in, there is a deficit. Every year that we run a deficit, it adds to the national debt. The national debt accures interest and we have to pay that too.

So when Clinton ran a budget surplus, we had to decide what to do with it... to pay down the national debt would have been a choice. It woudln't happen automatically. So the overall national debt could have been increasing due to interest that we owe, but we didn't borrow and spend.

Judging by some of the answers, the myth persists and will continue to do so. Oh well, but for those that still believe that Clinton created budget surpluses, or that he somehow erased the deficit and created a treasury surplus, you need only go to the official treasury website to look at the record and see these surpluses never existed.

All in all though, the Clinton administration was very good at seemingly handling money wisely.

It refers to projected surpluses based on the state of the economy, budgets and tax revenues. Clinton handed Bush an expected surplus. Notice 2000 had a deficit that dropped by nearly 90% off of 1999 (by your numbers, I haven't checked them). Without the Bush tax cuts, that would have lead to a large surplus the following year with no change in the fundamentals of the economy. Here's an articles from December 29, 2000, New York Times that cites the surplus estimate:

The Clinton administration handed a parting gift to President-elect George W. Bush today, projecting that the federal budget surplus would swell substantially, to nearly $5 trillion, over the next decade.

Administration officials said they expected the surplus to total $4.996 trillion in the 10 years beginning with the start of the next fiscal year, on Oct. 1, 2001. That amounts to an increase of just over $800 billion from the administration's previous projection, of $4.193 trillion for the 10 years that started this October.

Although such long-range projections are subject to change with ups and downs in the economy and are not a tool of great precision, the new estimates give Mr. Bush more wiggle room in his efforts to convince Congress and the public that his tax cut proposal, valued at some $1.6 trillion over 10 years, is affordable.

Clearly aware that the figures would further intensify the pent-up Republican demand for tax cuts, President Clinton used the release of the new projections to make a case for using the surplus to eliminate the $3.4 trillion national debt faster.

...

Dana, there became into some cooling for the duration of the previous due 60's and early 70's. It became into suggested on the time. particular the measurements have been possibly based on the utmost and minimum temperatures from a quite few stations, yet measured it became into. incredibly there became into some concern approximately an ongoing cooling style; possibly extra to do with uninformed alarmists than genuine technological know-how. many people (pupils of technological know-how) believed that the tiers of toxins in touch with coal burning, acid rain etc have been to blame. easily I nevertheless lean that way. We now be attentive to that different components had replaced, like the way Cosmic rays interacted with the ambience after the A bombs interior the radiation belts. perhaps there became into volcanic interest, who knows of. ought to even have been adequate Nuclear tests international huge to have a potential. What ever it became into warming quickly caught up, suggesting that the reason became into some momentary anomaly. easily i'm going to correctly be spreading this "fantasy" yet then i'm no longer incredibly sceptical, basically purpose

Since when does the truth matter to Democrats & their supporters? Anyone that could read knew the surplus was fudged, mainly with money from the Social security fund. Which BTW, would be fine if congress hadnt added it to the general revenues.

If you are unwilling to address the preposterous spending under Bush and voted for by McCain 90% of the time, what is the point? To say that Bush is guiltless? Balderdash! Bush was a financial disaster and McCain went along. He even sold himself out.

See chart below for the level of Bush's guilt. BTW, the PROJECTIONS of Clintion year trends had the debt paid off around 2013. Then along came George.

Because Obama's crew knew few people would check it out for themselves. Most of those that voted for Pres. Obama did not do their homework or their math. They instead took the word of Obama himself and his phony accounting on his campaign website. It doesn't pencil out.

Here goes, you are wasting your time because they will never admit to any faults. You , I and Bob Dole knows this is true, try to convince them.

libs are always trying to rewrite history to their favor, they took Orwell's 1984 (and Animal Farm for that matter) to heart.